Title: Blue Gold
Director: Sam Bozzo
Release year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of Blue Gold is that water is a finite resource, and currently the mindset of individuals is that water is an unlimited commodity and people use it recklessly without any regard to the ramifications of it depleting.
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film has a great deal of emotional appeal. I was moved by anecdote of Lee Kyung. Kyung stabbed himself in the heart at a protest in front of the World Trade Organization conference to demonstrate his strong distain a new constitutional framework put in place by well developed countries. This single action encompasses how desperate people are for water.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The way we all learn about the water cycle is that it’s perpetual and a perfectly engineered system by Mother Nature. The truth is that we are currently moving water to deserts to grow crops or polluting the water. This displaces Mother Nature’s system and makes it non-sustainable. This world water crisis is facing all of us but in the long term the only way people will develop a complete understanding of the problem is when they run out of water. The bottom line is we have to start focusing on what is the renewable supply which is what comes through the hydrological cycle and learn to utilize that.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I had never considered the lack of water to be a sustainability issue. However, I was shocked as I watched on and realized that large cooperation’s are trying to profit from bottling and reselling water on the grounds that they know someday it will be a commodity that everyone will need to purchase. For example Nestle had targeted the great lakes as a source of fresh water to bottle. A local organization made up of volunteers known as the Michigan citizens for water conservation (MCWC) had filed a lawsuit against Nestle trying to prevent them from stealing water from the great lakes. As a response Nestle filed a slap suite against the MCWC. This was targeted directly at Chris Swier, President of the MCWC. Swier had to defend himself from Nestle and eventually won a legal suite brought against him and the MCWC.
I found this part of the film to be the most compelling because I couldn’t help but feel empathy for Swier since he was just doing what he felt was right, on the other hand Nestle was doing what they felt would be the most profitable for them, and they had no interest in putting the neighboring community first. To me this is a horrible act by a large cooperation that has the same rights as an individual. This is a perfect reason why cooperation’s should not be given the same privileges as citizens when they clearly hold a great deal more power.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The part of the film that I was least compelled by was the beverage companies claiming that their bottled water was more expensive than their carbonated beverage. For example Coca Cola made the argument that their water subsidiary Dasani was more expensive because it was sold in plastic bottles, which is supposedly more expansive than the glass bottles that Coke is sold in. If this was really the case then they would use glass bottles for everything.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I feel like anyone who lives in a water rich country should view this film. I’m sure that upstate New York is not considered to be in a water shortage but if what the director states are true then it’s only a matter of time before water becomes a commodity. If this is true then developed countries need to develop the infrastructure now to prepare for the future water wars.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
In the film the expert Dr. Michael Kravcik suggest that holes need to be dug to return the water back to its natural hydrological cycles. The young girl explaining the process said “we need to dig holes to trick the water to stay so it doesn’t run to a river or ocean”. I understand that this is a very inexpensive solution to the containing water but I would have liked if the director had expanded upon the explanation further since it didn’t seem to make much since. How is a hole going to contain much more than just the ground absorbing water itself? Also it seems like you would need a lot of holes to make any real difference.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggests a number of different solutions that can change the way water enters and leaves the ecosystems. For instance there is a permeable pavement solutions that will allow water in infiltrate through and make its way to the subsoil. The soil filters out contaminates and actually makes the water cleaner than if it had actually been introduced straight to the ecosystem. The film also suggests buying a low flow shower head and taking shorter showers, which I have actually done since I saw it.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
The end of the film suggested that everyone should know the name of their watershed. I took this advice to heart and actually looked up the water shed that my home is located in. I found that I live in the Hudson-Hoosic Watershed – 02020003. http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=02020003
I was intrigued by the portion of the movie that spoke about desalination of water. The film states that only rich countries could fund a desalination plant. Also desalination plants add carbon emissions to the atmosphere and require large amounts of energy to operate.
In this article Singapore has developed small desalination plants that can be placed in areas needed, such as small towns or disaster relief zones. These desalination plants are powered by solar cells and employ a new way of removing salt from water that has never been done before. The technology has been licensed to other large companies around the world to adapt and use for their own purposes. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/business/energy-environment/22iht-rbog-technology-22.html?pagewanted=all
Director: Sam Bozzo
Release year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of Blue Gold is that water is a finite resource, and currently the mindset of individuals is that water is an unlimited commodity and people use it recklessly without any regard to the ramifications of it depleting.
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film has a great deal of emotional appeal. I was moved by anecdote of Lee Kyung. Kyung stabbed himself in the heart at a protest in front of the World Trade Organization conference to demonstrate his strong distain a new constitutional framework put in place by well developed countries. This single action encompasses how desperate people are for water.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The way we all learn about the water cycle is that it’s perpetual and a perfectly engineered system by Mother Nature. The truth is that we are currently moving water to deserts to grow crops or polluting the water. This displaces Mother Nature’s system and makes it non-sustainable.
This world water crisis is facing all of us but in the long term the only way people will develop a complete understanding of the problem is when they run out of water. The bottom line is we have to start focusing on what is the renewable supply which is what comes through the hydrological cycle and learn to utilize that.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I had never considered the lack of water to be a sustainability issue. However, I was shocked as I watched on and realized that large cooperation’s are trying to profit from bottling and reselling water on the grounds that they know someday it will be a commodity that everyone will need to purchase.
For example Nestle had targeted the great lakes as a source of fresh water to bottle. A local organization made up of volunteers known as the Michigan citizens for water conservation (MCWC) had filed a lawsuit against Nestle trying to prevent them from stealing water from the great lakes. As a response Nestle filed a slap suite against the MCWC. This was targeted directly at Chris Swier, President of the MCWC. Swier had to defend himself from Nestle and eventually won a legal suite brought against him and the MCWC.
I found this part of the film to be the most compelling because I couldn’t help but feel empathy for Swier since he was just doing what he felt was right, on the other hand Nestle was doing what they felt would be the most profitable for them, and they had no interest in putting the neighboring community first.
To me this is a horrible act by a large cooperation that has the same rights as an individual. This is a perfect reason why cooperation’s should not be given the same privileges as citizens when they clearly hold a great deal more power.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The part of the film that I was least compelled by was the beverage companies claiming that their bottled water was more expensive than their carbonated beverage. For example Coca Cola made the argument that their water subsidiary Dasani was more expensive because it was sold in plastic bottles, which is supposedly more expansive than the glass bottles that Coke is sold in. If this was really the case then they would use glass bottles for everything.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I feel like anyone who lives in a water rich country should view this film. I’m sure that upstate New York is not considered to be in a water shortage but if what the director states are true then it’s only a matter of time before water becomes a commodity. If this is true then developed countries need to develop the infrastructure now to prepare for the future water wars.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
In the film the expert Dr. Michael Kravcik suggest that holes need to be dug to return the water back to its natural hydrological cycles. The young girl explaining the process said “we need to dig holes to trick the water to stay so it doesn’t run to a river or ocean”. I understand that this is a very inexpensive solution to the containing water but I would have liked if the director had expanded upon the explanation further since it didn’t seem to make much since. How is a hole going to contain much more than just the ground absorbing water itself? Also it seems like you would need a lot of holes to make any real difference.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggests a number of different solutions that can change the way water enters and leaves the ecosystems. For instance there is a permeable pavement solutions that will allow water in infiltrate through and make its way to the subsoil. The soil filters out contaminates and actually makes the water cleaner than if it had actually been introduced straight to the ecosystem.
The film also suggests buying a low flow shower head and taking shorter showers, which I have actually done since I saw it.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
The end of the film suggested that everyone should know the name of their watershed. I took this advice to heart and actually looked up the water shed that my home is located in. I found that I live in the Hudson-Hoosic Watershed – 02020003.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=02020003
I was intrigued by the portion of the movie that spoke about desalination of water. The film states that only rich countries could fund a desalination plant. Also desalination plants add carbon emissions to the atmosphere and require large amounts of energy to operate.
In this article Singapore has developed small desalination plants that can be placed in areas needed, such as small towns or disaster relief zones. These desalination plants are powered by solar cells and employ a new way of removing salt from water that has never been done before. The technology has been licensed to other large companies around the world to adapt and use for their own purposes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/business/energy-environment/22iht-rbog-technology-22.html?pagewanted=all